We chat about the latest legal copyright related controversies with a seasoned legal professional

At DailyTech we are always
looking for diverse opinions from those with experience and knowledge
in fields relating to the tech industry. Thus DailyTech
was quite enthused when Jeffrey Johnson, a partner with Pryor Cashman
LLP agreed to do a piece with us discussing copyright and the tech
industry. Pryor Cashman is one of the nation's leading law
firms with 120 attorneys, with offices in New York and Los Angeles.
The firm has worked on numerous cases concerning the
software/hardware/internet industries and the entertainment industry.

The following is our unabridged
interview with Mr. Johnson.

UPDATE: Monday, Nov. 16, 2009, 1:00 p.m.:

Many readers asked for Mr. Johnson to reply to the question about the legality of backup copies of DVDs/CDs. Rather than let these requests fall on deaf ears, we recontacted Mr. Johnson, and his response is now included below.

DailyTech:
What do you
make of the current state of copyright law, and what parallels do you
see to the stir that happened when Xerox hit the scene, offering easy
copying of print media and potential infringement?

JCJ:
Generally
speaking, and for many understandable policy reasons, law can be slow
to change: usually, its a trailing indicator of changes in society at
large, and when it does change, those changes ordinarily come about
as new legislation or new ways of doing business, rather than judges
imposing social change through case law. By way of example, when
copyright law was first developed, there was no such thing as a
copier. Copying a book was a laborious process, and few people would
undertake that process for a non-commercial purpose like sharing the
contents with a friend; instead, they would actually share the book
itself. When Xerox and other manufacturers made it so easy to copy
books, it suddenly became very easy to copy a few pages from a book
(or the entire thing for that matter, so long as you had enough
nickels) and share them with a friend, or take them home from the
library to work on your paper. It took the law several years to
figure out how best to deal with the new technology, and even then
most of the issues were worked out privately between rights holders
(e.g., book publishers) and the owners of widely-accessible copy
machines, such as libraries.

While 21st century technology is
much different, the underlying process of grappling with
technological change, and deciding how the law will change to cope
with that new technology, is very similar. When judges try to apply
old case law, and old legislation, to new technology, they frequently
find that the law simply doesn't address the new circumstances in a
manner that allows for sensible results, so they look to the
legislators to make changes in the law that will allow for realistic
solutions. The legislators, however, are beholden to competing
interests that ensure that such change will be slow in
coming.

DailyTech:
Do you see the
music/movies/television industries' legal crusade against citizens
who pirate as productive? With rulings like the recent $1.92M
USD verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rassert drawing public ire, how
can the industry fight piracy, while not coming across as a bunch of
thugs?
JCJ:
It's not easy. Until the law catches up
with technological change, rights holders can, and I think should,
seek to protect and enforce their rights under the law. Those suits,
and the public response to those suits, may prove to be one of the
best ways to spur legislators to make the hard legislative choices
necessary to allow for more practical outcomes than forcing large
industries to sue their customers.

DailyTech:
Microsoft
recently kicked
1 million users off of Xbox Live for modifying their consoles.
Likewise, Apple tried to brick
iPhones that were unlocked or jailbroken, back in 2007. In your
opinion should the law allow users who legally purchased products to
modify them freely, or should the opposite -- a ban on modifications
-- be enforced?

JCJ:
As a practical matter, I can't
imagine a public consensus developing around a change in the law that
would allow end-users to freely modify products that are used to
access third party content. Vigorously enforcing a ban on
modifications, however, may prove to be impractical. I can imagine a
compromise where modifications are allowed subject to some process of
review and approval (similar to how Apple handles iPhone apps), or
perhaps where machines that can be modified are sold along-side
versions that can't, with the machines that can be modified having
reduced or altered functionality, or perhaps a much higher price. The
key complication is the fact that there are two parties to the
transaction -- the manufacturer of the machine and the end-user --
but hundreds of other affected parties (i.e., the owners of all the
content that is run on the machine). Getting a consensus from all
those parties won't be easy.

DailyTech:
One of the
key drivers for modification of Xbox consoles is to make backup
copies of discs. The RIAA/MPAA have long stated that backups
of legally-owned materials are illegal and that "making one
copy is another way of saying stole one copy". Should such
backups, in your view, be legal? Why or why not?

JCJ:

I think this is a good example of where the law and technology are no longer synchronized. It is generally correct that, as a legal matter, unless a written contract (e.g., license agreement) otherwise allows, it is a violation of copyright law to copy a copyrighted work for purposes of making a "back-up" copy. This is no different than making copies of a hard cover novel or a vinyl album just in case you lose or damage it. Nobody ever seriously grappled with the issue of whether you should have a right to make a copy of a book or an album and keep it on your shelf for that eventuality, arguably because the risk of loss/damage was relatively low, and the cost of copying was relatively high. It seems to me there is little difference with a machine-readable disc, except that the likelihood of damage or loss of the disc is probably higher, while the cost of making a copy is much lower. Accordingly, the real challenge is not construing existing law; rather, it is deciding how, if at all, to change the law in light of a new technological reality.

DailyTech:
A UK independent musician from the band Orange Juice says that a variety of major labels have infringed on his songs. He claims such examples of major labels claiming to own copyrights of small musicians (which they don't hold) to be common. What do you make of this, and how do your react to the light that this casts on the major labels campaign against civilian infringers?

JCJ:
These types of disputes are not
new, but the vast majority of newly composed music does not get held
hostage to a dispute over copyright ownership. When it does, it's a
pretty straight-forward legal question, and the courts, however
imperfect, are probably still the best place to resolve the issue.
While I'm sure there are some unscrupulous label execs. who try to
steal music their label's don't rightfully own, there are also
musicians who, in all sincerity, hear their own music in tunes
actually composed by others.

DailyTech:
What's your
view on the "three
strikes" laws proposed in France, UK, Australia, and
elsewhere, that propose cutting off internet filesharers after two
warnings, forcing ISPs to cut their service?
JCJ:
We
all have to start experimenting with new options to deal with new
technology. Whether this approach will work I can't say, but I'm
skeptical.

DailyTech thanks Jeffrey Johnson for his
time and for providing us with some insightful responses into how
some in the law community view various copyright-related issues.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Phuck! You are long winded! I wish you'd get a phucking clue about reality and think for yourself rather than what the crooks have lead you to believe. It is amazing the lengths people will go to justify their immoral and criminal behavior. "The law is wrong, so you don't have to obey it" bullshite.

You're an idiot. Morality and legality rarely have anything to do with each other. I guess you'd be the same person on your soap box screaming at black people for sitting at the front of the bus, or daring to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms as white people back in the 50's right? I mean after all, it was ILLEGAL for black people to do these things at one time.

Moron? hahahahaaah! You're the one who said Leper Messiah was "being racial and oppressing people". He said:

quote: I guess you'd be the same person on your soap box screaming at black people for sitting at the front of the bus, or daring to use the same drinking fountains and bathrooms as white people back in the 50's right? I mean after all, it was ILLEGAL for black people to do these things at one time.

I think he meant "morality sometimes means changing, and if necessary, breaking the law simply because it is immoral." Leper Messiah, please correct me if I misunderstood you. And I agree with that sentiment, btw.

Ok, please tell me in what way what he said was racial? Is stating facts, yet again, cause for people to get upset? I guess we should just forget about the Holocaust and all the Holy Crusades because those people were being racist, more religionist (if that's even a real word) actually but the same concept.

Saying that at one point it was illegal doesn't make him a racist. It made him someone who knows his history and got his facts straight.

I don't think the poster was, but morality IS something that shifts over time since it is about what is SEEN as what is right and what is wrong. From that perspective, segregation and racism are still issues that some people find either moral or immoral, depending on where you stand on the issue.

The general public feels that segregation, racism, and slavery are wrong, but that does not mean that everyone around the world feels that way. Some people feel that they have the right to freely copy music as well right now, even when the artists have not given permission.

Wading into the real topic of downloading music, it is one thing for someone to play a song written by others and then distribute a recording of that, and reproducing a recording of what someone else has done. To be fair about it, if you want to be able to listen to a recording of a song, you have to be able to perform the song yourself, or pay the PERFORMER something since the performer did the work, you did not.

In the world of commercial music, record labels INVEST money to make an album/CD/DVD. That may come from recording sessions, advertising, distribution, etc. The record labels deserve compensation for their investment, but the ownership should remain with the original artist who performed for the recording.

Going back historically, to the days before recorded music, songs were often written by one person, and a popular song would be played by many other performers. There was no cause for complaint except when others tried to claim credit for the original composition, and the recording industry NEEDS to understand that.

There should be no need for a license to play a song written by someone else, as long as proper credit goes back to the original writer. Things get more complicated when money is charged for derivative works though, but a fair law would be something like five percent of the proceeds from a derivative work should go back to the original artist or something like that.

Until the idiots in the court system understand all of this though, they really have no justifiable claim to be able to make laws on the issue.